State v. Hadfield , 128 Utah Adv. Rep. 6 ( 1990 )

HALL, Chief Justice

(dissenting):

I dissent because I am not persuaded that the Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. As was observed in State v. Harris,¹

The denial of [a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence] will be deemed an abuse of discretion only in such instances where there is a grave suspicion that justice may have been miscarried because of the lack of enlightenment on a vital point, which the new evidence will supply; and the other elements attendant on obtaining a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are present. If there be evidence before the court upon which reasonable [persons] might differ as to whether or not the defendant is guilty, the trial court may deny a motion for a new trial.

The evidence defendant sought to introduce in support of his motion for a new trial was not in fact newly discovered evidence.² Rather, it was cumulative, irrelevant, or inadmissible.³ It was therefore insufficient to support his motion.⁴

ZIMMERMAN, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HALL, C.J. STEWART, J., does not participate herein; DAVIDSON, Court of Appeals Judge, sat.

1 . 30 Utah 2d 77, 80, 513 P.2d 438, 439-40 (Utah 1973).

2 . State v. Williams, 712 P.2d 220 (Utah 1985).

3 . State v. Gellatly, 22 Utah 2d 149, 449 P.2d 993 (Utah 1969).

4 . See supra note 1.